It saddens me that many news outlets seem to copy the marketing blurb without even the most basic of fact checking.
For example "8x longer" translates into "800% vs. 100% duration". That is
700% longer, not 800%. But somewhere, someone translates "8x" into "800%
longer", and many, many other sites copy that without even thinking about it. For example in my country there's this news site
Nu.nl which caters to a million+ audience. And their mention of this reads like a straight copy from the site this thread starts with. Even if you can't very the actual performance of the device, you can still read carefully through the claims, right? Basic math isn't rocket science!
I mean, I'm just a simple hobbyist, but
I can see what exactly is claimed by reading carefully. Without even grabbing my pocket calculator.
And this news site has people on their payroll who do this for a living (surely including some with their heads buried in tech sites all day), and
they can't? :shakehead
Mostly I see this as a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I see the claims, but I don't see the evidence. All I see is a slick website, and a few knowledgeable-
looking faces/names plastered on it. But you know what? If the product has any merit, you don't need those names to back up your claims. If the products has no/little merit, those names won't do
anything to change that.
What it will do though, is help to move lots of the product before people find out it's of little use (making the 'inventors' very happy :tinfoil: ). At which point it'll work for some people, in some cases, and it becomes pretty much a "yes/no" back & forth. This mode of operation is one of all ages, and if you're not recognizing that pattern, well then... it's your $$... :laughing:
Btw. $2,50 isn't very expensive... when it's out, I just might order a few to do some measurements & find out
how well it works (or not). Or ehm, Batteriser people, if you're reading this: feel free to send me a couple so I can verify your claims!